 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Nathaniel B.11/6/2002
e scheduled section 366.26 hearing in April 2002, appellant's husband addressed the court expressing concern that he was unable to get anyone to talk to them about the minor's placement and wanted the court to instruct someone to talk to them. Appellant's husband questioned the significance of the historical information the social workers relied upon, and believed that DHHS had not made the effort required under the law to place the minor with appellant. In response to the court's questions, appellant stated the LiveScan application was returned to the social worker the day the evaluation was done. The court noted that the file did not include a home evaluation or the results of the LiveScan but that appellant and her husband had been present at court hearings and visitation had been ordered. Counsel for DHHS acknowledged an evaluation had been done but was omitted from an earlier report in error. Counsel further advised the court that the decision not to place the minor with appellant had been made at the time of the evaluation and the adoptions worker did discuss the issue with appellant and her husband. The court ordered a copy of the home evaluation be provided to all counsel and to appellant and continued the hearing so that placement and evaluation issues could be addressed.
The adoptions worker filed an addendum which stated LiveScans for appellant and her husband were submitted November 9, 2001. On the same day and prior to the date the social worker's report was filed, "no record" responses were printed for appellant and her husband. The addendum detailed the ongoing contacts after January 2002 between the adoptions worker and appellant's husband, who wanted to meet and clarify information in the home evaluation report. The adoptions worker contacted the reunification worker who said the evaluation was complete and appellant and her husband were ruled out as a placement for the minor based on appellant's previous history with the department and her failure to reunify with the minor's half-siblings. The reunification worker said she definitely told appellant they were ruled out for placement and why.
The adoptions worker met with appellant and her husband in late January 2002 and explained the previous social worker had completed a home evaluation, excluded them as a placement and a second evaluation would not be performed. Appellant said no one had told her how to get the half-siblings back, but the adoptions worker pointed out that appellant had been involved in the siblings' case to some degree, participating in supervised visitation and coming to court, but apparently never had asked about having the minors returned to her care. The maternal stepgrandfather persisted in attempts to get a second evaluation by arriving at the DHHS office unannounced and making telephone calls to the adoptions worker's supervisor, who eventually met with appellant and her husband to again clarify the placement decision.
The adoptions worker conducted a thorough review of the case to assure that the Department had met its responsibility to consider appellant and her husband for placement. The adoptions worker was concerned about their ability to provide care for the minor and raise him due to appellant's full-time job, her husbands' disabling illnesses and the minor's ongoing respiratory problems which required special care and extra medical appointments. The adoptions worker was also concerned about the stormy marital history of both appellant and her husband and the lack of evidence of any counseling to resolve the issues. The adoptions worker also viewed the ongoing initiation of contacts by appellant's husband, rather than appellant, as an indication of the same lack of commitment appellant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|